Non Overlapping Magisteria

[Job 33:6]

In one hand, someone dies and they are eternally saved. Whatever hardships, unanswered questions, pain, etc. That you might feel, are washed away by the blood of Jesus. You become eternally saved in heaven. And those answers are revealed there.

Outside of faith, you die and maybe your body decomposes and gets eaten by worms, but that's it. There's no resolution, no justice. No relief of humanity.

 

[Job 33:6]

Seems more of a similarity there. Both believers and non-believers are not equipped to answer the question.

I guess you add that someone else (God) may have the answer. But in this forum, only humans (and perhaps a couple AI's) are here to answer.

I would agree I suppose. Just a difference in a trust in God then, to reveal the truth.

We trust that there is an answer, rather than no answer and that He will provide.

 

[Job 33:6]

Although, strictly speaking, the answer for why there is something rather than nothing, with respect to physical matter, is because God created it.

Why God Himself exists rather than nothing, just have to wait to meet Him to ask.

 

[Phred]

And what would constitute acceptable evidence?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[Phred]

Although, strictly speaking, the answer for why there is something rather than nothing, with respect to physical matter, is because God created it.

Why God Himself exists rather than nothing, just have to wait to meet Him to ask.

That's not an answer. That's a claim.

 

[Bradskii]

Rather than "none" which doesn't really provide a moral "direction", religion makes an effort to provide some structure for establishing a moral framework. Whether that framework has been perfected is debatable depending on the sect and point in history and time, but it's an effort to construct a unified moral framework none the less.

Let's not confuse a lack of religious belief with a lack of a moral direction. I have developed my sense of morality over many decades and I have used many sources for guidance. Including religion. Not just Christianity (and certainly not one denomination within Christainity). Seeing as there as many interpretations of religious beliefs as there are religious believers, it seems nonsensical to me to restrict oneself to one specific view and to discount all others.

You may say that I am then simply making up my own mind as to what is right or wrong. And you'd be exactly right. But correct me if I'm wrong, you interpret God's will yourself OR you determine that someone else's interpretation is correct. Either way, it's you making the decision.

 

[Bradskii]

Someone earlier mentioned a purpose for life being "none". I can't imagine you're referring to this. I'd be curious to hear why you think there might be something rather than nothing that exists.

I think we share something in that our responses are exactly the same.

Why is there X?
X just is.

But my answer goes no further. Yours has an asterix alongside it because it needs to include an intelligence, a trinity, a son sent to save us via a virgin birth, miracles, answered prayers, eternal punishment or reward, a personal connection with each of us, purpose, moral direction, a whole litany of do's and don'ts etc etc. (and I've omitted all the literalist beliefs). Notwithstanding that the three main monotheistic religions are completely at odds with the details and that there are hundreds of denominations within one of them all of whom disagree with each other, some on the most fundamental basics.

A razor? Occam would need a chainsaw to hack through all that.

 

[Job 33:6]

That's not an answer. That's a claim.

Like I said, you don't have to believe it. It is a faith based belief.

 

[Job 33:6]

Let's not confuse a lack of religious belief with a lack of a moral direction. I have developed my sense of morality over many decades and I have used many sources for guidance. Including religion. Not just Christianity (and certainly not one denomination within Christainity). Seeing as there as many interpretations of religious beliefs as there are religious believers, it seems nonsensical to me to restrict oneself to one specific view and to discount all others.

You may say that I am then simply making up my own mind as to what is right or wrong. And you'd be exactly right. But correct me if I'm wrong, you interpret God's will yourself OR you determine that someone else's interpretation is correct. Either way, it's you making the decision.

Never said you had no sense of moral direction. Im simply saying that religion provides a structured framework for morality. And to be fair, a religion of "none" or a view in which the purpose of life is "none", does not.

Everyone of course is free to view morality however they wish and to believe in whatever sources they might think it stems from.

 

[Job 33:6]

I think we share something in that our responses are exactly the same.

Why is there X?
X just is.

But my answer goes no further. Yours has an asterix alongside it because it needs to include an intelligence, a trinity, a son sent to save us via a virgin birth, miracles, answered prayers, eternal punishment or reward, a personal connection with each of us, purpose, moral direction, a whole litany of do's and don'ts etc etc. (and I've omitted all the literalist beliefs). Notwithstanding that the three main monotheistic religions are completely at odds with the details and that there are hundreds of denominations within one of them all of whom disagree with each other, some on the most fundamental basics.

A razor? Occam would need a chainsaw to hack through all that.

Some things are worth the astrix. In the opinions of some at least.

I think there's also the caveat that everyone's faith is different, especially among Christians. For example, not all Christians are trinitarians. And littany of dos and donts? Christ did away with dos and donts when he died on the cross. Ever read the book of Romans?

Faith is what you make of it. You have freedom in Christ to believe what you want of each of the above topics. Ultimately Christ simply asks us to follow him. Trust in Him, and to love and to worship. And how each person carries that out can differ.

 

[Job 33:6]

Some things are worth the astrix. In the opinions of some at least.

I think there's also the caveat that everyone's faith is different, especially among Christians. For example, not all Christians are trinitarians. And littany of dos and donts? Christ did away with dos and donts when he died on the cross. Ever read the book of Romans?

Faith is what you make of it. You have freedom in Christ to believe what you want of each of the above topics. Ultimately Christ simply asks us to follow him. Trust in Him, and to love and to worship. And how each person carries that out can differ.

When Paul talks about circumcision of the heart, he's not talking about bypass surgery. He's saying that all are level at the foot of the cross.

Unfortunately Christians come in many shapes and sizes and some missed this lesson.

 

[Job 33:6]

You may say that I am then simply making up my own mind as to what is right or wrong. And you'd be exactly right. But correct me if I'm wrong, you interpret God's will yourself OR you determine that someone else's interpretation is correct. Either way, it's you making the decision.

Another thought on this as well. A church body can really amplify and mobilize people behind moral concepts much more readily. An individual might have a personal opinion that loving thy neighbor is a good thing to do. But a church or church's, when coming from the right source, can take this message to far reaches of the planet and into dark places where people really could use it, much more readily than any individual.

We live in a word where, to be fair, we do have crime. Stealing, murder, rape, or more commonly known as sin. People individually may or may not agree that these are problematic activities. The church of Christ has potential (albeit with its own brokenness), to push back against these issues in ways that, in my opinion, individuals that aren't of a religion may struggle to do on their own.

It is true that religious beliefs can also be used for wrong as well, such as in the case of the 9/11 attacks. But that wouldn't change the good that comes of it as well in other instances, when in the right hands or perceived correctly. I couldn't even begin to describe the number of lives saved by the church, not just spiritually but physically.

Ideally if we were truly following Christ, we would only see good come from the church.

 

[Vap841]

There are some concepts that science just cannot touch on. Purpose and meaning. Why is there something rather than nothing. Why is matter self-aware in our case, rather than us all having the sentience of a rock? Why is our sentience experienced as beauty and awe? Rather than perhaps nothing or no experience at all?

These are some of core questions that drive religion. Questions of identity and purpose.

And likewise there are questions that religion cannot answer because it doesn't implement any particular methods for investigating the natural world.

In this sense, I think that Goulds ideas make sense.

Sort of like complaining that this hammer makes for a terrible screwdriver, and this screwdriver makes for a terrible hammer lol

 

[Vap841]

.

 

[driewerf]

God has created us.

Not me. I was conceived, gestated and then born

 

[Dorothy Mae]

The problem that happens when the possibility of an agent behind what is should be eliminated is it removes one possibly logic conclusion based on the data. It’s like this. We watch Bones. In this show they use science to determine cause of death. If they operated as many evolutionists do, they would never find murder, or an agent, to be behind a death but always and only see natural causes. The possibility of an intelligence because of the science would be forbidden.

 

[Ophiolite]

The problem that happens when the possibility of an agent behind what is should be eliminated is it removes one possibly logic conclusion based on the data. It’s like this. We watch Bones. In this show they use science to determine cause of death. If they operated as many evolutionists do, they would never find murder, or an agent, to be behind a death but always and only see natural causes. The possibility of an intelligence because of the science would be forbidden.

On that logic all murders are supernatural. Good to know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In one hand, someone dies and they are eternally saved. Whatever hardships, unanswered questions, pain, etc. That you might feel, are washed away by the blood of Jesus. You become eternally saved in heaven. And those answers are revealed there.

Outside of faith, you die and maybe your body decomposes and gets eaten by worms, but that's it. There's no resolution, no justice. No relief of humanity.

So many supernatural claims, no evidence for any...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... But a church or church's, when coming from the right source, can take this message to far reaches of the planet and into dark places where people really could use it, much more readily than any individual.

Quite often people that have been managing fine without paternal colonialism and potential damage to social structures.

We live in a word where, to be fair, we do have crime. Stealing, murder, rape, or more commonly known as sin. People individually may or may not agree that these are problematic activities. The church of Christ has potential (albeit with its own brokenness), to push back against these issues in ways that, in my opinion, individuals that aren't of a religion may struggle to do on their own.

It's interesting that more secular communities generally score higher than religious communities on objective measures of well-being, including crime, so religiosity is not a panacea for 'problematic' activities. I suspect the reason is not that religion fosters low levels of well-being, but that it helps those living with low levels of well-being feel better about life - without improving it otherwise.

Ideally if we were truly following Christ, we would only see good come from the church.

That's a very big 'IF'; sadly, it rarely seems to work out that way, and often quite the opposite.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The problem that happens when the possibility of an agent behind what is should be eliminated is it removes one possibly logic conclusion based on the data. It’s like this. We watch Bones. In this show they use science to determine cause of death. If they operated as many evolutionists do, they would never find murder, or an agent, to be behind a death but always and only see natural causes. The possibility of an intelligence because of the science would be forbidden.

Er, no. I think you'll find they weigh up the evidence and select the hypothesis that best fits it. They can't decide that someone has been murdered unless they have clear evidence of human involvement in the death. What they don't say is, "We don't know how this person died, so it must be murder".